Feinstein's bill would treat Americans like criminals just for exercising their rights

Going too far

Published: Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 3:15 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, January 25, 2013 at 4:59 p.m.

An American citizen should not be fined, fingerprinted, photographed, investigated and forced to have local law enforcement vouch for him just to exercise his constitutional rights.

But Sen. Diane Feinstein thinks millions of American gun owners should be treated in just that way.

There is much wrong with the senator’s proposed legislation to ban many firearms, but the worst part is that it would require millions of citizens to register their weapons with the federal government under the National Firearms Act.

This is the law that prohibits most people from owning fully automatic weapons. Those who want to own such a weapon have to apply to the federal government for permission. They have to pay a couple hundred dollars in fees, they have to be photographed and fingerprinted. They have to get certification from local law enforcement that they are upstanding citizens. And the authorities run a background check on them.

Feinstein would expand this process from fully automatic weapons to many semi-automatic weapons, including any with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. What is not clear is whether owners of such guns would have to pay the fees.

Her legislation would ban the manufacture and sale of these weapons. But people who already own them would be treated like criminals for their past use of their constitutional rights.

And federal officials would have a handy computerized database of most firearm owners in the nation, a database that Sen. Feinstein and her ilk would no doubt like to expand in the future to include all firearm owners.

The benefit of all this will be minimal. It’s important to remember that “assault weapon” is a political term rather than an easily defined class of weapons. Washington politicians use the term to identify any guns they think look frightening. Under Feinstein’s bill, the term and the ban would apply to guns that have been in American homes for almost a century.

The previous assault weapons ban was not renewed because it had little effect on crime.

Sen. Feinstein’s website cites a Department of Justice study in its claim that “the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders.” This is a lie.

What the study actually stated was that there had been an overall 6.7 percent decrease in gun murders, and the researchers estimated that the ban contributed to that decrease, but the decrease may have simply been a normal variation. That’s a far cry from finding that the ban was responsible for the entire drop.

But Sen. Feinstein is not about to let the truth get in the way of her hyperbole. That’s why she never quotes the finding in the same study that: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

And she never mentions the finding that: “We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim.”

There is a reason Feinstein and her supporters ignore facts. The truth is not on their side. Why are they focusing so much on “assault rifles” when all rifles together were responsible for only 323 homicides nationwide in 2011? More than five times as many homicides were committed with knives in the same year. More than twice as many people killed with their bare hands as killed with a rifle that year, according to FBI statistics. Figures for previous years are similar.

Feinstein’s bill and similar efforts pushed by the president will not reduce crime. It should be obvious that such laws are obeyed only by the law-abiding. Criminals routinely disregard the law.

Why are this senator and the president focusing their efforts on limiting and hassling law-abiding gun owners? They would do better to focus on apprehending violent criminals, keeping them in prison longer and treating the mentally ill.

<p>An American citizen should not be fined, fingerprinted, photographed, investigated and forced to have local law enforcement vouch for him just to exercise his constitutional rights.</p><p>But Sen. Diane Feinstein thinks millions of American gun owners should be treated in just that way.</p><p>There is much wrong with the senator's proposed legislation to ban many firearms, but the worst part is that it would require millions of citizens to register their weapons with the federal government under the National Firearms Act.</p><p>This is the law that prohibits most people from owning fully automatic weapons. Those who want to own such a weapon have to apply to the federal government for permission. They have to pay a couple hundred dollars in fees, they have to be photographed and fingerprinted. They have to get certification from local law enforcement that they are upstanding citizens. And the authorities run a background check on them.</p><p>Feinstein would expand this process from fully automatic weapons to many semi-automatic weapons, including any with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. What is not clear is whether owners of such guns would have to pay the fees.</p><p>Her legislation would ban the manufacture and sale of these weapons. But people who already own them would be treated like criminals for their past use of their constitutional rights.</p><p>And federal officials would have a handy computerized database of most firearm owners in the nation, a database that Sen. Feinstein and her ilk would no doubt like to expand in the future to include all firearm owners.</p><p>The benefit of all this will be minimal. It's important to remember that “assault weapon” is a political term rather than an easily defined class of weapons. Washington politicians use the term to identify any guns they think look frightening. Under Feinstein's bill, the term and the ban would apply to guns that have been in American homes for almost a century.</p><p>The previous assault weapons ban was not renewed because it had little effect on crime.</p><p>Sen. Feinstein's website cites a Department of Justice study in its claim that “the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders.” This is a lie.</p><p>What the study actually stated was that there had been an overall 6.7 percent decrease in gun murders, and the researchers estimated that the ban contributed to that decrease, but the decrease may have simply been a normal variation. That's a far cry from finding that the ban was responsible for the entire drop.</p><p>But Sen. Feinstein is not about to let the truth get in the way of her hyperbole. That's why she never quotes the finding in the same study that: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”</p><p>And she never mentions the finding that: “We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim.”</p><p>There is a reason Feinstein and her supporters ignore facts. The truth is not on their side. Why are they focusing so much on “assault rifles” when all rifles together were responsible for only 323 homicides nationwide in 2011? More than five times as many homicides were committed with knives in the same year. More than twice as many people killed with their bare hands as killed with a rifle that year, according to FBI statistics. Figures for previous years are similar.</p><p>Feinstein's bill and similar efforts pushed by the president will not reduce crime. It should be obvious that such laws are obeyed only by the law-abiding. Criminals routinely disregard the law.</p><p>Why are this senator and the president focusing their efforts on limiting and hassling law-abiding gun owners? They would do better to focus on apprehending violent criminals, keeping them in prison longer and treating the mentally ill.</p>